Studying the process of clinical communication: issues of context, concepts, and research directions

Reducing Health Disparities Among African American and Black Caribbean Patients by Improving the Communication Practices of Clinical Research Coordinators

This manuscript focuses on the communication factors that affect the willingness of African Americans and Black Caribbean patients to participate in clinical trials and research studies. Low rates of research participation by members of communities of color have long been linked to health disparities. While there are many factors that contribute to low rates of accrual of African American and Black patients to clinical trials, a lack of attention to communication factors that enhance or inhibit the recruitment process is central to the problem. In this study, we describe results from the analysis of six focus groups (N = 31) consisting of African American (k = 3) and Black Caribbean (k = 3) participants. Our analyses focus on verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors and how they affect participants' willingness to participate in clinical trials. Specifically, when clinical research coordinators (CRCs) had a professional appearance, made the effort to explain a study in detail, made eye contact, took the time to listen and answer questions patiently, and gave the sense that the CRC was being truthful and transparent, patients felt respected and valued. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of the process of developing and maintaining a trusting relationship between study participants and CRCs. The results of this study will be used to develop a clinical trial communication training program designed to enhance the communication skills of clinical research coordinators who discuss research participation with African American and Caribbean Black patients.

Framing Concerns about Body Image during Pre- and Post-Surgical Consultations for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Patient–Physician Interactions

Patients with head and neck cancer report high unmet psychosocial needs as they undergo lifesaving treatments that can significantly alter their appearance and cause functional impairments. This qualitative analysis of recordings of 88 pre- and post-surgical consultations involving 20 patients respond to the need for empirical studies of patient–provider conversations about body image concerns. It indicates that the emphasis on concerns about survival, cure, and physical recovery during clinical consultations may leave concerns about the impacts of surgery on appearance and function unexplored and even silenced. The interviews with patients and medical team members that complement the analysis of the recordings suggest that an emphasis on survival, cure, and physical recovery can respond to the need for reassurance in the context of serious illness. However, it can also be problematic as it contributes to the silencing of patients’ concerns and to a potential lack of preparedness for the consequences of surgery. The results of this study can contribute to raising surgeons’ awareness of the interactional dynamics during clinical consultations. Moreover, the results highlight the unique role that surgeons can play in validating patients’ psychosocial concerns to support patients’ rehabilitation in both physical and psychosocial domains.

Effect of Patient-Centered Communication on Physician-Patient Conflicts from the Physicians' Perspective: A Moderated Mediation Model

Physician-patient conflicts are detrimental to doctor-patient relationship and sustainable healthcare delivery. In China, the status quo of the doctor-patient relationship is in great tension. Based on the uncertainty reduction theory (URT), the present study examined the relationship between patient-centered communication (PCC) and medical conflict, as well as the roles of perceived patients' trust, doctors' empathy, and expertise from physicians' perspectives. In March 2020, 509 physicians in China were recruited to participate in an online survey. The results revealed that PCC was negatively associated with physician-patient conflicts and that patient trust mediated the relationship. Additionally, doctors' empathy moderated PCC on patient trust, while expertise positively predicted physician-patient conflicts. Theoretical and practical implications for improving doctor-patient relationships were discussed.

A Review of Research on Disparities in the Care of Black and White Patients With Cancer in Detroit

Racial disparities in cancer incidence and outcomes are well-documented in the US, with Black people having higher incidence rates and worse outcomes than White people. In this review, we present a summary of almost 30 years of research conducted by investigators at the Karmanos Cancer Institute's (KCI's) Population Studies and Disparities Research (PSDR) Program focusing on Black-White disparities in cancer incidence, care, and outcomes. The studies in the review focus on individuals diagnosed with cancer from the Detroit Metropolitan area, but also includes individuals included in national databases. Using an organizational framework of three generations of studies on racial disparities, this review describes racial disparities by primary cancer site, disparities associated with the presence or absence of comorbid medical conditions, disparities in treatment, and disparities in physician-patient communication, all of which contribute to poorer outcomes for Black cancer patients. While socio-demographic and clinical differences account for some of the noted disparities, further work is needed to unravel the influence of systemic effects of racism against Black people, which is argued to be the major contributor to disparate outcomes between Black and White patients with cancer. This review highlights evidence-based strategies that have the potential to help mitigate disparities, improve care for vulnerable populations, and build an equitable healthcare system. Lessons learned can also inform a more equitable response to other health conditions and crises.

Patients' Experience of Communication During Their Course of Treatment in an Oncology Outpatient Clinic: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Communication between patients and healthcare professionals becomes increasingly important as patients with cancer are primarily treated in outpatient settings, where the time to communicate is brief. There is a need to understand patients' experiences of communication to ensure person-centered communication during treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore how patients experience communication with healthcare professionals during their course of treatment in an oncology outpatient clinic to elucidate how their needs for support are met.

METHODS

Data were generated through semistructured qualitative interviews in patients with cancer who received treatment in an oncology outpatient clinic (n = 18). Interpretive description methodology and symbolic interactionism inspired the analytical approach.

RESULTS

Three overarching communication categories were generated, namely, verbal practices, relational practices, and nonverbal practices, which reflect distinct characteristics and the quality of the communication. Communication was characterized as being informative, cheerful, and routinized, which the patients found supportive and, contrarily, superficial, task focused, lacking continuity in care, and missing existential dimensions.

CONCLUSION

The communication practice in the oncology outpatient clinic especially supported patients in managing their treatment and side effects. However, psychological, social, and existential concerns were rarely addressed, requiring the patient to self-manage these issues in everyday life while living with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients are socialized by verbal and nonverbal communication practices in the outpatient clinic, which influences their expectations of what to talk about during their treatment. Methods are needed to support person-centered communication in outpatient settings, so patient care needs are met more broadly.

Partnering around cancer clinical trials (PACCT): study protocol for a randomized trial of a patient and physician communication intervention to increase minority accrual to prostate cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trials are essential for testing new treatments and represent state-of-the-art cancer treatment, but only a small percentage of patients ever enroll in a trial. Under-enrollment is an even greater problem among minorities, particularly African Americans, representing a racial/ethnic disparity in cancer care. One understudied cause is patient-physician communication, which is often of poor quality during clinical interactions between African-American patients and non-African-American physicians. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) involves a transdisciplinary theoretical model proposing that patient and physician individual attitudes and beliefs and their interpersonal communication during racially discordant clinical interactions influence outcomes related to patients' decisions to participate in a trial. The overall goal of the study is to test a multilevel intervention designed to increase rates at which African-American and White men with prostate cancer make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

Data collection will occur at two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Participants include physicians who treat men with prostate cancer and their African-American and White patients who are potentially eligible for a clinical trial. The study uses two distinct research designs to evaluate the effects of two behavioral interventions, one focused on patients and the other on physicians. The primary goal is to increase the number of patients who decide to enroll in a trial; secondary goals include increasing rates of physician trial offers, improving the quality of patient-physician communication during video recorded clinical interactions in which trials may be discussed, improving patients' understanding of trials offered, and increasing the number of patients who actually enroll. Aims are to 1) determine the independent and combined effects of the two interventions on outcomes; 2) compare the effects of the interventions on African-American versus White men; and 3) examine the extent to which patient-physician communication mediates the effect of the interventions on the outcomes.

DISCUSSION

PACCT has the potential to identify ways to increase clinical trial rates in a diverse patient population. The research can also improve access to high quality clinical care for African American men bearing the disproportionate burden of disparities in prostate and other cancers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02906241 (September 8, 2016).

Communication Among Melanoma Family Members

Interventions to improve communication among family members may facilitate information flow about familial risk and preventive health behaviors. This is a secondary analysis of the effects of an interactive website intervention aimed at increasing communication frequency and agreement about health risk among melanoma families. Participants were family units, consisting of one family member with melanoma identified from a previous research study (the Case) and an additional first degree relative and a parent of a child 0-17. Family triads were randomized to receive access to the website intervention or to serve as control families. Family communication frequency and agreement about melanoma prevention behaviors and beliefs were measured at baseline and again at 1 year post randomization. Intervention participants of all three types significantly increased the frequency of communication to their first degree relatives (Parents, siblings, children; range = 14-18 percentage points; all p < .05). At baseline, approximately two-thirds of all three family members talked with at least some member of the family about cancer risk. Agreement between Cases and First Degree Relatives and between Cases and Parents increased from pre to post intervention in the intervention participants compared to the control participants (p < .05). These findings provide support for interventions to improve family communication about cancer risk.

"You Need to Be a Good Listener": Recruiters' Use of Relational Communication Behaviors to Enhance Clinical Trial and Research Study Accrual

Medical and research professionals who discuss clinical trials and research studies with potential participants face an often daunting challenge, particularly when recruiting from minority and underserved populations. This study reports on findings from a focus group study of 63 research coordinators, study nurses, professional recruiters, and other professionals in Indianapolis, IN and Miami, FL who work to recruit from minority and underserved populations. These professionals discussed the importance of creating a sense of connection with potential participants as part of the recruitment and retention process. Building a relationship, however fleeting, involved a number of concrete behaviors, including listening to personal information, expressing empathy, and then providing reciprocal self-disclosures; having repeated contact, usually by working in the same environment over an extended period of time; demonstrating respect through politeness and the use of honorifics; going the extra mile for participants; offering flexibility in scheduling follow-up appointments; and creating a sense of personal and community trust by being truthful. The implications of these findings for clinical trial and research study accrual are discussed.

Risk, Activism, and Empowerment

The prevalence of breast cancer in Venezuela is particularly alarming, which is attributed to healthcare inequalities, low health literacy, and lagging compliance with prevention methods (i.e., screening and mammography). While the right to health is acknowledged by the Venezuelan constitution, activism beyond governmental confines is required to increase women's breast cancer awareness and decrease mortality rates. Through the development of social support and strategic communicative methods enacted by healthcare providers, it may be possible to empower women with the tools necessary for breast cancer prevention. This paper discusses issues surrounding women's breast cancer, such as awareness of the disease and its risks, self-advocacy, and the roles of activists, healthcare providers, and society. Specifically, it describes a four-year action-oriented research project developed in Venezuela, which was a collaborative work among researchers, practitioners, NGOs, patients, journalists, and policymakers. The outcomes include higher levels of awareness and interest among community members and organizations to learn and seek more information about women's breast cancer, better understandings of the communicated messages, more media coverage and medical consultations, increasing positive patient treatments, expansion of networking of NGOs, as well as a widely supported declaration for a national response against breast cancer in Venezuela.

The Role of Health Care Provider and Partner Decisional Support in Patients' Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Satisfaction

Cancer patients rely on multiple sources of support when making treatment decisions; however, most research studies examine the influence of health care provider support while the influence of family member support is understudied. The current study fills this gap by examining the influence of health care providers and partners on decision-making satisfaction. In a cross-sectional study via an online Qualtrics panel, we surveyed cancer patients who reported that they had a spouse or romantic partner when making cancer treatment decisions (n = 479). Decisional support was measured using 5-point, single-item scales for emotional support, informational support, informational-advice support, and appraisal support. Decision-making satisfaction was measured using Holmes-Rovner and colleagues' (1996) Satisfaction With Decision Scale. We conducted a mediated regression analysis to examine treatment decision-making satisfaction for all participants and a moderated mediation analysis to examine treatment satisfaction among those patients offered a clinical trial. Results indicated that partner support significantly and partially mediated the relationship between health care provider support and patients' decision-making satisfaction but that results did not vary by enrollment in a clinical trial. This study shows how and why decisional support from partners affects communication between health care providers and cancer patients.

African-American patients with cancer Talking About Clinical Trials (TACT) with oncologists during consultations: evaluating the efficacy of tailored health messages in a randomised controlled trial-the TACT study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Low rates of accrual of African-American (AA) patients with cancer to therapeutic clinical trials (CTs) represent a serious and modifiable racial disparity in healthcare that impedes the development of promising cancer therapies. Suboptimal physician-patient consultation communication is a barrier to the accrual of patients with cancer of any race, but communication difficulties are compounded with AA patients. Providing tailored health messages (THM) to AA patients and their physician about CTs has the potential to improve communication, lower barriers to accrual and ameliorate health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

(1) Demonstrate the efficacy of THM to increase patient activation as measured by direct observation. (2) Demonstrate the efficacy of THM to improve patient outcomes associated with barriers to AA participation. (3) Explore associations among preconsultation levels of: (A) trust in medical researchers, (B) knowledge and attitudes towards CTs, (C) patient-family member congruence in decision-making, and (D) involvement/information preferences, and group assignment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

First, using established methods, we will develop THM materials. Second, the efficacy of the intervention is determined in a 2 by 2 factorial randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of (1) providing 357 AA patients with cancer with THM with 2 different 'depths' of tailoring and (2) either providing feedback to oncologists about the patients' trial THM or not. The primary analysis compares patient engaged communication in 4 groups preconsultation and postconsultation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Virginia Commonwealth University Institutional Review Board. To facilitate use of the THM intervention in diverse settings, we will convene 'user groups' at 3 major US cancer centres. To facilitate dissemination, we will post all materials and the implementation guide in publicly available locations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02356549.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials that study cancer are essential for testing the safety and effectiveness of promising treatments, but most people with cancer never enroll in a clinical trial - a challenge exemplified in racial and ethnic minorities. Underenrollment of racial and ethnic minorities reduces the generalizability of research findings and represents a disparity in access to high-quality health care.

METHODS

Using a multilevel model as a framework, potential barriers to trial enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities were identified at system, individual, and interpersonal levels. Exactly how each level directly or indirectly contributes to doctor-patient communication was also reviewed. Selected examples of implemented interventions are included to help address these barriers. We then propose our own evidence-based intervention addressing barriers at the individual and interpersonal levels.

RESULTS

Barriers to enrolling a diverse population of patients in clinical trials are complex and multilevel. Interventions focused at each level have been relatively successful, but multilevel interventions have the greatest potential for success.

CONCLUSION

To increase the enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials, future interventions should address barriers at multiple levels.

Decision-Making Process Related to Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials: A Nonsystematic Review of the Existing Evidence

Due to the lack of other treatment options, patient candidates for participation in phase I clinical trials are considered the most vulnerable, and many ethical concerns have emerged regarding the informed consent process used in the experimental design of such trials. Starting with these considerations, this nonsystematic review is aimed at analyzing the decision-making processes underlying patients' decision about whether to participate (or not) in phase I trials in order to clarify the cognitive and emotional aspects most strongly implicated in this decision. Considering that there is no uniform decision calculus and that many different variables other than the patient-physician relationship (including demographic, clinical, and personal characteristics) may influence patients' preferences for and processing of information, we conclude that patients' informed decision-making can be facilitated by creating a rigorously developed, calibrated, and validated computer tool modeled on each single patient's knowledge, values, and emotional and cognitive decisional skills. Such a tool will also help oncologists to provide tailored medical information that is useful to improve the shared decision-making process, thereby possibly increasing patient participation in clinical trials.

Risk, Activism, and Empowerment: Women's Breast Cancer in Venezuela

The prevalence of breast cancer in Venezuela is particularly alarming, which is attributed to healthcare inequalities, low health literacy, and lagging compliance with prevention methods (i.e., screening and mammography). While the right to health is acknowledged by the Venezuelan constitution, activism beyond governmental confines is required to increase women's breast cancer awareness and decrease mortality rates. Through the development of social support and strategic communicative methods enacted by healthcare providers, it may be possible to empower women with the tools necessary for breast cancer prevention. This paper discusses issues surrounding women's breast cancer, such as awareness of the disease and its risks, self-advocacy, and the roles of activists, healthcare providers, and society. Specifically, it describes a four-year action-oriented research project developed in Venezuela, which was a collaborative work among researchers, practitioners, NGOs, patients, journalists, and policymakers. The outcomes include higher levels of awareness and interest among community members and organizations to learn and seek more information about women's breast cancer, better understandings of the communicated messages, more media coverage and medical consultations, increasing positive patient treatments, expansion of networking of NGOs, as well as a widely supported declaration for a national response against breast cancer in Venezuela.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Perceptions of participation in a phase I, II, or III clinical trial among African American patients with cancer: what do refusers say?

BACKGROUND

Less than 5% of all adult patients with cancer enter clinical trials. These rates are lower in racial/ethnic minority populations, negatively affecting the generalizability and validity of trial results. Many studies have identified barriers to minority enrolment, yet few have gathered in-depth insights into minority patients' reasons for trial refusal. We aimed to (1) explore trial refusal reasons in a sample of African American (AA) patients with cancer who declined trial participation and (2) gather patients' perceptions of the potential benefit of an array of decision support tools.

METHODS

Participants were 22 consecutively recruited AA patients with cancer who had declined participation in a therapeutic clinical trial. Within 3 months of the trial refusal decision, participants completed an audio-recorded semistructured interview that asked about demographic and disease information, psychosocial factors, and patients' experience with clinical trials. Two months later, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their trial decision.

RESULTS

Few patients received positive recommendations about joining a trial. Patients gave multiple refusal reasons. Only two participants refused to join a clinical trial as a result of issues of mistrust. Most participants refused as a result of fears of additional burdens and adverse effects. Many patients and family members misunderstood trial information. Family members mostly recommended against trial participation. Most patients felt that question prompt lists or decision aids would assist information seeking and decision making.

CONCLUSION

Low rates of physician recommendations for clinical trial participation of AA patients with cancer warrant further investigation. Interventions to reduce misunderstandings and aid decision making, both within and external to the clinical interaction, need to target both patients and family members.

Parent perceptions of early prognostic encounters following children's severe traumatic brain injury: 'locked up in this cage of absolute horror'

OBJECTIVE

Little guidance exists for discussing prognosis in early acute care with parents following children's severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Providers' beliefs about truth-telling can shape what is said, how it is said and how providers respond to parents.

METHODS

This study was part of a large qualitative study conducted in the US (42 parents/37 families) following children's moderate-to-severe TBI (2005-2007). Ethnography of speaking was used to analyse interviews describing early acute care following children's severe TBI (29 parents/25 families).

RESULTS

Parents perceived that: (a) parents were disadvantaged by provider delivery; (b) negative outcome values dominated some provider's talk; (c) truth-telling involves providers acknowledging all possibilities; (d) framing the child's prognosis with negative medical certainty when there is some uncertainty could damage parent-provider relationships; (e) parents needed to remain optimistic; and (f) children's outcomes could differ from providers' early acute care prognostications.

CONCLUSION

Parents blatantly and tacitly revealed their beliefs that providers play an important role in shaping parent reception of and synthesis of prognostic information, which constructs the family's ability to cope and participate in shared decision-making. Negative medical certainty created a fearful or threatening environment that kept parents from being fully informed.

Patient-doctor agreement on recall of clinical trial discussion across cultures

BACKGROUND

The purpose was to investigate patient-doctor agreement on clinical trial discussion cross-culturally.

METHODS

In the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 33-03 on shared decision-making for early breast cancer in Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) and Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centers, doctor and patient characteristics plus doctor stress and burnout were assessed. Within 2 weeks post-consultation about treatment options, the doctor and patient reported independently, whether a trial was discussed. Odds ratios of agreement for covariables were estimated by generalized estimating equations for each language cohort, with doctor as a random effect.

RESULTS

In ANZ, 21 doctors and 339 patients were eligible; in SGA, 41 doctors and 427 patients. In cases where the doctor indicated 'no trial discussed', 82% of both ANZ and SGA patients agreed; if the doctor indicated 'trial discussed', 50% of ANZ and 38% of SGA patients agreed, respectively. Factors associated with higher agreement were: low tumor grade and fewer patients recruited into clinical trials in SGA; public institution, patient born in ANZ (versus other), higher doctor depersonalization and personal accomplishment in ANZ.

CONCLUSION

There is discordance between oncologists and their patients regarding clinical trial discussion, particularly when the doctor indicates that a trial was discussed. Factors contributing to this agreement vary by culture.

ADHD knowledge, perceptions, and information sources: perspectives from a community sample of adolescents and their parents

PURPOSE

The chronic illness model advocates for psychoeducation within a collaborative care model to enhance outcomes. To inform psychoeducational approaches for ADHD, this study describes parent and adolescent knowledge, perceptions, and information sources and explores how these vary by sociodemographic characteristics, ADHD risk, and past child mental health service use.

METHODS

Parents and adolescents were assessed 7.7 years after initial school district screening for ADHD risk. The study sample included 374 adolescents (56% high and 44% low ADHD risk) aged, on average, 15.4 (standard deviation = 1.8) years, and 36% were African American. Survey questions assessed ADHD knowledge, perceptions, and cues to action and elicited used and preferred information sources. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine potential independent predictors of ADHD knowledge. McNemar tests compared information source utilization against preference.

RESULTS

Despite relatively high self-rated ADHD familiarity, misperceptions among parents and adolescents were common, including a sugar etiology (25% and 27%, respectively) and medication overuse (85% and 67%, respectively). African American respondents expressed less ADHD awareness and greater belief in sugar etiology than Caucasians. Parents used a wide range of ADHD information sources, whereas adolescents relied on social network members and teachers/school. However, parents and adolescents expressed similar strong preferences for the Internet (49% and 51%, respectively) and doctor (40% and 27%, respectively) as ADHD information sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Culturally appropriate psychoeducational strategies are needed that combine doctor-provided ADHD information with reputable Internet sources. Despite time limitations during patient visits, both parents and teens place high priority on receiving information from their doctor.

Testing the utility of a cancer clinical trial specific Question Prompt List (QPL-CT) during oncology consultations

OBJECTIVE

A Question Prompt List (QPL) is a proven, simple intervention to aid patients to be active participants in consultations with their physicians by asking questions. We aimed to further develop and test the efficacy of a targeted QPL for clinical trials (QPL-CT).

METHODS

Breast, Lung and Genitourinary cancer patients who were facing a discussion about a therapeutic clinical trial completed short pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and used the QPL-CT in their discussions with their oncologists.

RESULTS

30 participants were recruited from 6 oncologists. All QPL-CT questions were selected by at least one-third of participants. Participants mostly wanted and asked questions about personal trial benefit. Oncologists provided information about personal benefit to varying degrees, thus patients did not ask some questions. Patients were still left with some unasked and unanswered questions.

CONCLUSION

The QPL-CT has potential as a simple, inexpensive intervention to aid such communication. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of the QPL-CT in improving cancer patient outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These preliminary finding suggest that important areas of clinical trials are overlooked in clinical consultations. The QPL-CT may be an effective method to encourage oncologists to endorse patient question asking about clinical trials and prompt patient questions.

Life-Threatening Disparities: The Treatment of Black and White Cancer Patients

Cancer mortality and survival rates are much poorer for Black patients than for White patients. We argue that Black-White treatment disparities are a major reason for these disparities. We examine three specific kinds of Black-White treatment disparities: disparities in information exchange in oncology interactions, disparities in the treatment of breast cancer, and disparities in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. In the final section, we discuss possible causes of these disparities, with a primary focus on communication within medical interactions and the role that race-related attitudes and beliefs may play in the quality of communication in these interactions.

Association between nonverbal communication during clinical interactions and outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting associations between patients' and clinicians' nonverbal communication during real clinical interactions and clinically relevant outcomes.

METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases, reference lists, and expert contacts for English-language studies examining associations between nonverbal communication measured through direct observation and either clinician or patient outcomes in adults. Data were systematically extracted and random effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

26 observational studies met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for patient satisfaction, which was assessed in 65% of studies. Mental and physical health status were evaluated in 23% and 19% of included studies, respectively. Both clinician warmth and clinician listening were associated with greater patient satisfaction (p<0.001 both). Physician negativity was not related to patient satisfaction (p=0.505), but greater nurse negativity was associated with less patient satisfaction (p<0.001). Substantial differences in study design and nonverbal measures existed across studies.

CONCLUSION

Greater clinician warmth, less nurse negativity, and greater clinician listening were associated with greater patient satisfaction. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of nonverbal communication on patients' mental and physical health.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Communication-based interventions that target clinician warmth and listening and nurse negativity may lead to greater patient satisfaction.

Patient, companion, and oncologist agreement regarding information discussed during triadic oncology clinical interactions

BACKGROUND

Although people with cancer want and need information from their oncologists, patients and oncologists often disagree about what information was discussed during clinical interactions. Most patients have companions present during oncology visits; we investigated whether companions process information more accurately than patients. Specifically, we examined whether patients and companions differed in agreement with oncologists about what was discussed. We also investigated the effect of topic on agreement and patient/companion self-reported understanding of discussions.

METHODS

Patients with companions were invited to participate on first visits to a cancer center in Detroit, MI. Patients, companions, and oncologists independently completed questionnaires immediately following visits. Participants were asked whether five topics were discussed (diagnosis, prognosis, metastasis, treatment/treatment goals, and side effects) and, if discussed, what oncologists said. Participants were also asked to estimate their own and each other's understanding of discussions.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patient-companion-oncologist triads participated. Agreement was higher regarding whether topics were discussed than what oncologists said. Agreement did not differ by dyad type. Patients, companions, and oncologists were equally likely to be the source of triadic disagreements. Agreement was high about diagnosis (>90%) but much lower about other topics, particularly side effects. Patients and companions reported greater understanding of discussions than oncologists estimated and more accurately estimated each other's understanding than did oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Companions and patients showed similar levels of agreement with oncologists about what they discussed during visits. Interventions are needed to improve communication of information to both patients and companions, especially about particular topics.

Methodological diversity and integration in health communication inquiry

Research on health communication is complicated by myriad individual, organizational, and societal factors that influence health-related decisions and behaviors, making it difficult to control for secular trends (uncontrolled social and environmental influences) that affect health care and health promotion practices. Sophisticated research on health communication must take into account the numerous situational, psychological, and societal factors to fully examine the often hidden dynamics of health care and health promotion. This essay examines major research challenges, strategies, and opportunities for making sense of the complexities of health communication processes, recommending the power of methodological diversity and integration for health research.